Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="tomcat, post: 2341867, member: 961"] I believe -- someone correct me if I'm wrong here == that the teachers pay into their own pension system in lieu of SS. And as someone mentioned above, it has been a longstanding practice for state employees, who generally work for less (yes, yes, I know there are a few politically connected major exceptions) than people in equivalent work in the private sector, to be offered pensions in addition to SS that keep them coming to work when they could catch a better deal salary-wise elsewhere. In my last pre-retirement job, a public sector position in Arizona I held for more than 9 years, I figured I was paid maybe 15% less than the going private sector rate for the level of work I did. However, I contributed 50% of my pension funding every two weeks, and my employer matched it. These contributions were mandatory, and boy, was I grateful for them. Pensions were calculated based on your last three years of salary and the number of years you were employed. That pension makes a real difference for me now. I did not take the job because of the pension, but as retirement neared, I was really glad I was working in a place where my SS would be supplemented. At least in the past, the states figured they needed to appeal to employees' self-interest, which only makes sense, and if they couldn't match private sector salaries, they still needed to offer something that would make it worth the salary sacrifice. Hence the pensions. But, to carry this one step further, if you're going to offer employees a pension, you'd better fund it, which is what many of those politicians didn't do. That's why states like Illinois are in huge hot water today with what's called "unfunded pension liability." I'm predicting that many of them will renege on the promises they made to workers, leaving those workers high and dry after years of service. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach